>> schieffer: today on "face the nation," egypt in chaos, hundreds dead, over a thousand wounded. the violence continues but can the united states do anything about it? when the egyptian military launched a brutal crackdown on protesters supported ousted president morsi, the president condemned the violence. >> while we want to sustain our relationship with egypt, our traditional operation cannot continue as usual when civilians are being killed in the streets. >> schieffer: but what can we do now? we'll go to cairo for the latest and we'll talk to south carolina senator lindsey graham just back from the region. we'll ask california democratic congresswoman jackie speier about the pentagon's new rules on sexual assault. she says they are not enough. and we'll ask new york police

commissioner ray kelly about a court reining in the city's stop-and-frisk policies. on page two we'll talk to members of the hue judiciary committee, chairman bob goodlatte and chairman bobby scott. we'll wrap up with analysis with "time" international editor bobby ghosh, amy walter of the cook political report and cnn political commentator kevin madden. we'll cover it all because this is "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: good morning again. well, the situation in egypt is no better today. since the military crackdown on pro morsi forces began on wednesday, more than 800 have been killed, at least a thousand people are wounded, there is noend in sight.

we're going to begin this morning with cbs news correspondent charlie d'agata who is in cairo. charlie, bring us up to date. what's the latest? >> bob, we're expecting more demonstrations today and they're bracing for it here. we're seeing two worlds emerging. it's like two different versions. the story you're seeing there in the outside world and what you're seeing here in egypt and egyptian television. we've just come back from the foreign ministry and we were handed these photos that show muslim brotherhood members and supporters using live ammunition against security forces. and it reads under the banner "egypt fights terrorism." and what they're trying to suggest is that we're getting it wrong, that this is security forces that are fighting against terrorist groups and they have to do this in order to crush this threat of terror. but it's not what we've seen. there may be supporters that had guns but largely what we saw, especially on friday, the last big demonstration, were unarmed civilians going straight into

the line of fire. we could hear the gunfire and we saw them come back on the backs of motorcycles and they've been shot in the head in the neck about chest. essentially shot to kill. that doesn't mean that armed civilians aren't fighting it out. they are. another big concern now is that the government has said that they are proposing a ban on the muslim brotherhood and that's just going to cause more anger. there are hundreds of people that have been arrested and they will be charged, we're told, with murder and terrorism. >> schieffer: charlie, i guess this is a question no one can really answer, but how does this end? i mean, how long does this thing go on? >> i think the real question here, and we may see it this afternoon, is how much steam does the muslim brotherhood still have? i mean, their leadership has been arrested, they've been decimated. they know that whenever they do come to these areas, these protests, they will come under fire. the military has said as much. so if we see large gatherings today and over the course of the next few days like the muslim

brotherhood intends to do it will show you that there is a force and they will face a line of fire. otherwise it will show you that the military-led government has clearly got the upper hand. >> schieffer: all right. well, charlie, thank you so much and be very careful. >> thank you. >> schieffer: joining us now, senator lindsey graham. he is just back from cairo where he and senator john mccain met with both sides. he's in south carolina this morning. senator graham, it's been a while since i've seen any pictures like this. and now we are seeing-- you heard charlie talk about the egyptian generals who are trying to say this is the war against terrorists. and the fact is the head of al qaeda's brother, that's mr. aipl aipl, has been arrested now and we're told he was planning to bring in armed groups to oppose the generals. mr. al-zawahiri. doesn't this make it even more complicated and find out who we ought to do and who we ought to

be supporting here? >> in a way yes but in a way no. i mean, we can't -- after 2011 we sided with the protesters against mubarak. there's no going back for our country for supporting strong manned dictatorships. the muslim brotherhood corrupted their mandate. they won the election. the egyptian people are not terrorists, they got a majority of the vote but after a year of governing they drove people away and this coup-- and it was a coup-- has a lot of popular support. where are we headed? we're headed for algeria. the brotherhood will go underground, al qaeda will come to their aid and you'll have an armed insurgency, not protesters on your hands in the next 60 days or 90 days and we'll have a failed state in egypt and we'll have to suspend our aid because we can't support the reaction of the military. even though brotherhood overplaying their hand started this, we can't support what the military is doing in response. >> schieffer: well, we don't want to encourage a government to come to power there that has al qaeda elements in it, do we?

i mean -- and if we cut off that aid, doesn't that just help that? >> bob, al qaeda's never going to win at the ballot box. if there was a new election, the brotherhood would get beat. they would be marginalize bid the egyptian people. the army is making these people martyrs. you're looking at algeria where the opposition becomes an armed insurgency. the best way to solve this problem is to write a new constitution where everybody has a say and have new elections. if you had new elections, the brotherhood would get creamed at the ballot box, but they're going to be a very formidable force on the streets. they're going to get aligned with al qaeda, al qaeda is going to come uninvited into egypt and you're going to have a failed state. that means gas prices go up for us, the suez canal gets compromised and egypt becomes a staging area for terrorist acts against israel. this is an absolute disaster in the making. >> schieffer: well, you've been very critical of the president. what would you do? you say you would cut off this

aid. but beyond that, what would you do? >> i would tell the generals that we're going to suspend all aid until you allow a democratic transition and the aid is just a symbol for the relationship. it's not that much money. what would happen if we cut off the aid is that western terrorism ends in egypt for the foreseeable future. western investment comes to a standstill. egypt becomes a beggar client state of the sunni arab gulf states. egypt's future is damned and i make that point clear. it's just not about the aid, it's about the relationship. we're the strongest nation on earth. everybody that sides with us tends to do better than people that we oppose so i would play to the best interest of the military. stop this before it gets out of hand. we can't support where you're taking egypt. and i'd tell the brotherhood "forget about the condition of morsi being put back in as president before you have a new dialogue." i would be firm with the military and the brotherhood. we do have a lot of influence.

if american business stops investing in egypt and american tourists stop going to egypt their economy is going to be in ruins. there's a lot ott stake here for us and them. if you had a winner/loser list for from a failed state in egypt, the egyptian people and the american people would be on the loser list. we need to avoid that. >> schieffer: you were there. you and senator mccain talked to leaders on both sides, you talked to general al-sisi. do you think he is running things now? >> absolutely. i saw a man very conflicted. he's having people whisper in his ear from the sunni gulf states, even israel "crush the brotherhood." if you think you can take 25% 30r% of the population and put them in jail and kill them, you're making a mistake. that is al year ya. and we've sent mixed signals. john mccain and i called it a coup because that's what it is but we wanted time to restart. when secretary kerry said that the military was restoring

democracy they took that the wrong way. when they started jailing the leaders of the government that was a signal that they weren't interest in a transition. they weren't trying to restore order, they're trying to grab power and somebody needs to look and say "you're going to destroy egypt, you're going doom your country to a beggar state, you'll create an insurgency for generations to come. turn around, general, before it's too late. you're a better man than that." >> schieffer: let me shift and ask you about something that happened back here in washington defense secretary hague it will issued new rules for dealing with sexual assault cases in the military. he's giving commanders the ability to transfer those accused of committing sexual assault to other units. he's also bringing a military lawyer into the process. some of your colleagues-- and one we'll talk to in a minute, congresswoman jackie speier, said these baby steps and are

not what needs to be done. are you satisfied with what the government's done on this very serious problem? >> bob, i've been a military lawyer for over 30 years and the idea of taking the power away from the commander to regulate the unit and impose discipline and give it to a military lawyer isn't the right move. you can't solve any problem in the military without commander involvement. the steps we're taking in the military are unprecedented. i wish we had a system like this in south carolina where every victim had a lawyer. the culture in the military needs to change. women are going through way too much harassment, our commanders need to be held more accountable not less. but these steps of improving how you report a sexual assault, providing a lawyer for the victim to make sure they feel they can go through the system, having systems outside the command reporting chain to report a sexual assault i think are prektive actions that need to be made. taking this out of the military justice system i think is the wrong move.

>> schieffer: senator, we want to thank you for being with us this morning and we want to go now to congresswoman jackie speier of california. she's also a member of the house arms services committee. she's joining us this morning from san francisco. well, you heard what senator graham said congresswoman and i know you have already said that what the pentagon is planning to do, what they're trying to do here are simply baby steps. so what will you do and what do you think ought to be done here? >> well, bob, the real problem is that 26,000 men and women who serve our country are assaulted each and every year. only 3,000 of them report it. and of that, less than 10% are actually convicted. so the problem is that the command structure doesn't work, it hasn't worked for 25 years. these proposals by secretary hagel are baby steps, they're good but they're not best practices and they're really

repackaging what has been wrong in the system for all these years. when you have a general who is now being court-martialed for this kind of conduct, when you have sexual assault prevention officers who have been charged with unlawful conduct, you're speaking about the heart of the system not working properly. when you speak to the victim survivors, when you walk away from having those kinds of conversations with young men and women who wanted to serve their country and now whose lives are in turmoil because they have been discharged with a personality disorder because they were raped or sexually assaulted, this system is wrong. now, to lindsey graham's point, the senator is right. we don't want to take it out of the system. we want to keep hit in the military system. but let the prosecutors decide whether or not to charge these potential assailants. right now, the assailants in the military are going scot-free. they are not being charged and

they as a result are allowed to prey on more victims. >> pelley: well, you and senator gillibrand have both led this effort to try to get some kind of reforms, but what the people in the military say is that the commander has to be involved to maintain the chain of command. that's the way the military has always worked in the past. what exactly would you and senator gillibrand do? what would you do on this? >> we would keep hit in the military but take the decision making away from the commander who had no legal training the and put it into the hands of a prosecutor to evaluate whether or not the case should be charged. when you have the ability right now under the uniform code of military justice to have a general overturn a court-martial where there has been a conviction for sexual assault, we have a today that doesn't work. and it is rigged on if -- in favor of the assailant not the

victim. so by taking it out of the chain of command, keeping hit in the military, creating a separate office or allowing the prosecutor to make the decision will have a huge saliatory effect and be consistent with what other countries like the u.k., australia, israel have done and done very effectively. >> schieffer: let me ask you about something else before i let you go. the "washington post" reported last week that the national security agency often broke the rules on secrecy. that there were more violations that went -- than we had known about. how seriously do you take these stories? some of the committee chairs say well, really, they're doing everything, there's proper oversight. they're already saying that some of these errors that they've admitted to were inadvertent, they were human error. where do you see this going? >> i think for -- what we're going see happen is that there's going to be much more robust

oversight over the n.s.a. there is failed oversight right now. and the fact that there is all this activity going on that we don't know about, and they spoon-feed to the intelligence committees of both houses what they want to tell them. and for any of us to say that we know what's going on in the n.s.a. i would find very suspect. i think we've got to provide whistle-blower protection to those who serve in the intelligence community so there is somewhere they can go to report misdeeds without being subject to criminal prosecution. >> schieffer: do you think that edward snowden was a whistle blower? he's being called everything from a whistle blow? he's being called everything from a traitor to a defector because he leaked some of this information. >> i think jury is still out on whether he's a trait oregon a whistle-blower. but i do think he has highlighted some extraordinary misdeeds and i do think that we've got to create an avenue so

that persons within the military, if persons within the intelligence community and defense contractors can be able to report misdeeds without being subject to criminal prosecution. >> schieffer: all right, well, thank you so much, congresswoman. we'll be back in one minute. we'll talk to new york police commissioner ray kelly about new york's stop and frisk law and a federal judge's ruling that it amounts to racial profiling.

[ male announcer ] this is george. the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ >> schieffer: last week, a federal judge in a ruling that could have an impact on police procedure all across the country ruled that new york city police department's stop, question, and frisk policy violated a constitutional rights of minority there the city. joining us now to talk about it, the new york police department commissioner ray kelly. commissioner, i noted that your

reaction, you said that you found the judge's ruling offensive for one thing. are you going to change anything that you're doing now while this is on appeal? >> well, we're moving forward. mayor bloomberg has directed that. but the judge in this case has indicted the entire police department, almost 36,000 police officers for racial profiling based on what we believe is very flimsy information, flimsy evidence. the plaintiff's expert looked at 4.4 million stops about out of that number of stops over a ten-year period, the expert working for the plaintiff found 6% to be unjustified. the judge in the case looked at 19 stops and they could have been any stops that the plaintiff chose. she found 10 of the 19 stops were constitutionally acceptable. so we believe that the formula that was used which uses census

data is fundamentally flawed. >> schieffer: let me just ask you. wham exactly, for people that are not familiar with this, what exactly are you talking about when you talk about stop and frisk? what does that mean? >> you're talking about the common law right and, indeed, now it's statutory for police officers, their ability to stop someone in the public place who who they have reasonable suspicion may be committing a crime, is about to commit a crime or has committed a crime. now, this has been codified throughout the united states. it's been supported by supreme court decision terry v. ohio and indeed, it is a practice throughout america. >>. >> schieffer: when the judge says you're stopping more minorities-- that's basically what she's saying-- how do you say in response to that? >> well, we went to the rand corporation in 2006 and we asked this question. how do you determine whether or

not there's racial profiling going on? they said that the appropriate formula to use, if you will, is a description of victims of violent crime of the perpetrators of violent crime. and i can assure you our stops certainly comport with that. it's almost ironic here that the new york city police department is the most diverse police department in the united states but probably in the country. we have police officers born in 88 countries. our police officer rank is majority minority. and the last police academy class had graduates born in 50 or more countries. so we are as i say very much diverse and we look like the city that we police. now, the losers of this, if this case is allowed to stand, are people who live in minority communities. 97% of the shooting victims in new york city last year were people of color-- black or

latino. in the bloomberg administration -- 11 full years of mayor bloomberg's term, if you compare those 11 years to the previous 11 years, there's been 7,363 less murders, fewer murders. so if history is any guide, clearly those lives saved are larger. the lives of people of color. and we're saving lives, that's what we're engaged in. we just had a -- center for disease control study come out that said new york city has the lowest ratio of teenagers carrying guns than any city in america. >> schieffer: are you going to do anything different? one thing she said was she wants some officers to carry body cameras so that these stops can be recorded. are you planning to do that? >> well, we're going to obviously apply for a stay and

the appeal will go forward. but the body camera issue opens up more questions than it answers. when do you have the cameras on? when do you turn it off. do you have it on during a domestic dispute? do you have it on when somebody comes to give you confidential information? all of these issues have to be answered. we have, as i say, a little over 35,000 uniformed police officers. the only police that this has been implemented is cities that are much, much smaller than the n.y.p.d.. so there's a lot of questions here. obviously we're open to meaningful worthwhile recommendations and suggestions there is a monitor that -- coming in if this case is allowed to stand and that monitor will have to make a lot of decisions as to the implementations of this pilot program. >> schieffer: one final question on something entirely different.

reports in washington are that you are one of those being considered as a replacement for homeland security chief janet napolitano. has anybody talked to you about that? >> well, the president made a very flattering statement when he was asked a question about me specifically but i'm not going to comment any further. i've spent time in washington. i know it's wise to keep my mouth shut at this time. >> pelley:. >> schieffer: all right, well thank you so much commissioner. we'll be back with some personal thoughts in just a moment. out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. live the regular life. phillips'. >> schieffer: gerald ford's press secretary was former nbc news correspondent ron nesn and when nesn left his white house job he wrote a book called "it sure looks different from the inside." i ran across the book the other day and my first thought was "too bad that title is already taken, it would very perfect for president obama's white house memoir."

scott wilson wrote in the "washington post" "candidate obama promised to implement a foreign policy different in both tone and substance from that of his predecessor. a policy based on openness, the rule of law and the promotion of democratic values, especially the middle east. but since coming to office, he has found a new appreciation for the need for secrecy, the controversial drone program which critics call illegal and the difficulty of closing the prison at guantanamo. when egypt's generals toppled the country's first elected president, the united states didn't do much, probably because there was not much we could do. so much for promoting democratic values. the president is learning what those before him have learned: things that seem easily done in a campaign can be more complicated and difficult when the campaign is over. i've covered eight presidents. not one of them ever told me the job was easier than he thought it would be.

the more i think of it, maybe it sure looks different from the inside is the perfect title for any presidential memoir except, maybe, george washington's. and for the record i didn't personally interview him. back in a minute. the experience and commitment nice to have to go along with you. aarp medicare supplement insurance plans, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. keep dreaming. keep doing. go long. j.d. power and associates has ranked quicken loans highest in the nation in customer satisfaction... i say "family," because we've been blessed with this honor for 3 years in a row... rest assured we'll treat all of your mortgage needs

with tender loving care. amazing client satisfaction: it's a quicken loans family value. call 800-quicken or go to quickenloans.com to experience it for yourself. >> schieffer: some of our stations are leaving us now. for most of you, we'll be back with a lot more of "face the nation" with chairman bob goodlatte and bobby scott. our, our analysis panel. stay with us. ,,,,,,,,,,

>> schieffer: welcome back to "face the nation." joining us now to talk about the stop, question, and frisk policy and a whole lot more including the national security agency and what's going on there, two members of the house judiciary committee, the chairman bob goodlatte and democrat bobby scott both of whom happen to be from virginia. so we're glad to have both of you here today. congressman scott, let me just ask you, i want to get your reaction to what you just heard ray kelly say. he strongly defends the stop and frisk policy. >> i was surprised anybody would defend it. it overwhelmingly applies to minority areas. most of the people that are told to get up and get against the wall and get frisked are innocent. there's no probable cause, not even anyar tick laable suspicion about doing any good. if you tried that in other communities they'd be outraged

and they're rightfully outraged in the minority community about this? >> well, i think it's very important to look at whether it does, indeed, violate the civil liberties. the lower court judge found that to be the case. it goes on to a higher court. no question it's been effective in reducing crime in new york city, but you've got to the protect civil liberties at the same time. it's certainly appropriate to review it. >> schieffer: let's talk about the national security agency. another big disclosure in the "washington post" where the agency admits that they have intruded on some people's privacy but they say it's inadvertent. we have the chairs of both the house and senate intelligence committee saying basically that they believe they there's strong oversight. they're not sure that the agency -- to kind of port submit n short sentences-- has done anything wrong on purpose. but they admit some mistakes have been made.

do you feel that privacy has been invaded, mr. chairman? >> well, i think that we need to have much stronger oversight to determine whether or not that indeed is the case. when this was made known based on the leaks of snowden edward snowden, the committee conducted a classified briefing for all of the members of the house and it was very clear then that many of them did not know about these programs or how they worked, including the former chairman of the committee jim sensenbrenner who was the chairman when these laws were written and myself. obviously some members were aware of this, but most were not. so it's important, i think, that we delve into this much more deeply. since then, we've held a public hearing on this. we brought that same panel that was involved with the classified briefing plus a panel that included civil libertarian experts and now when we return in september we intend to hold another hearing, a classified hearing so we can dig deeply into the questions about how

much this costs, what evidence -- information is being gathered and how these programs need to be changed to comply with the law. >> schieffer: congressman, some members have actually said they thought that the committees, that have oversight on this have not been forthcoming to members. that they have withheld some things like audits and things. the committee chairs deny that. but do you think you've been getting the right kind of information on this? >> part of the problem is that what they say they're entitled to. and you can't believe all of the leaks. just because something has been leaked doesn't mean it's actually true. but getting all of the phone calls from all americans in the united states under the guise of information relevant to an ongoing investigation involving foreign intelligence gets all phone calls. well, that's to me a real stretch.

but the key --. >> schieffer: but it's not the phone calls, it's the phone numbers. >> well, yeah, then they say it was just the numbers but it doesn't take much of an operation to put names on the numbers. you can go on the internet and start connecting names and numbers. the question is, after you've gotten it, what do you do with it? the supreme court case a few weeks ago on d.n.a., that said if you're charged with a sex crime they've got your d.n.a. and they found out it's not you. they can keep the d.n.a. and what will they do? they'll run it through the database to see if you committed a crime. now, if they went up to you and said "give me d.n.a., we want to see if you committed a crime" that would be legally laughable but once they got it they can do what they want. now they said they've got all these phone records but they only queried information judiciously. well there is no -- i can't find anything in the code that limit what is they can do with that information, particularly in criminal investigations sot they say they're not doing it.

well, i want to rephrase ronald reagan and say we should trust by codify. put hit in the codes what they can do because they have virtually unlimited -- they have promised us they're not using it for criminal investigations. there's a leak, i don't know if it's true or not that some of this information that they got has been tipped over and sent over the the f.b.i. they, according to the leak, will use that leak to bust somebody. when they get the -- they tell the f.b.i. to kind of fabricate some probable cause so it looks like it didn't from the n.s.a.. they don't tell in response to querys from defense lawyers, they don't turn over the fact that it was an n.s.a. situation which raisings all kinds of questions. so we don't know. but the real question is what can you do with the information after you've gotten it? and it seems that we've been told one thing, what they do,

and they talk about the process that they use and what the law restricts. >> schieffer: and what needs to be done here? how serious a danger is this and what needs to be done? >> well, if you limit this this discussion and you limit the use of what you get to terrorism you'd be having a different discussion than what you have right now. >> i think we need to have a very careful examination of this. i think that the trust of the american people in their government is what's at stake here. i met with the president recently, told him just that. there has been, in my opinion, not a good leadership here in terms of making the american people feel good about an intelligence organization which is necessary for the national security of the country at the same time protecting american civil liberties as the law is intended to do. so we need to have the classified briefing. we then are going to be seeing legislation introduced in our committee, i have absolutely no doubt about that. and we will then undertake that. some of the things that are

suggested are to make it clear to the law, section 215, does not allow the government to gather large sums of data like they do. we need to have more transparency in the fisa court system. decisions are being made there not just on individual cases but on broader-based policy matters that are not being reviewed outside of the court and not readily available to the public or even most members of congress. i had members of congress complain to me about their inability to see some of those court decisions and i think that the public's confidence can only be restored by making the system as transparent as possible given that it is an intelligence decision. >> let me shift to immigration. do either of you think there's going to be an immigration reform bill of substance during this session in i know you have a new approach you're talking about but what do you think

chances are of getting something passd? >>. >> i think there are good possibilities that we can reform what is a broken immigration system. we are a nation of immigrants, there's not a person watching your program who's a u.s. citizen who can't go back a few generations and find somebody who came to this country to better their lives for their nation and family. we're not seeing enforcement of our current immigration laws so enforcement has to take place first. >> schieffer: but you have to figure out something to do with these 11 million people that are already here. what are you going to do with them? >> well, first, i think you have to assure there's not going to be another wave of illegal immigration. that was the big criticism of the 1986 law. they gave an easy pathway to citizenship to nearly three million people and then they said we're going to secure the border, we're going to have employer sanctions and so on. and all of that has been very lightly enforced and in some

instances not at all enforced not just by this president but by a series of presidents. so you have to trust the american people by saying the law is going to be enforced and we need new laws on employment verification, on entry exit visa system, on allowing state and local law enforcement to have a clear statutorily defined role is so no one person, no one president can decide i'm going to enforce law or not enforce the law. it needs to have more trust. then you don't need -- then you need legal immigration reforms then finally we need to find the appropriate legal status for people who are not here. >> schieffer: congressman, i'll give you the last word. do you think there there's a chance that any of this can happen? >> i think bob has outlined the agreement. it has to be comprehensive, secure the borders, deal with the people that are here and deal with the people coming in on a rational basis. the bill that covered those base passed the senate with almost 70 votes. we can do the same thing but i don't think you can do it piecemeal because people have

interest interests. everybody's -- an overwhelming portion are willing to go with a comprehensive package but doing it piece male would be problematic. >> step by step approach is the way to do it with enforcement coming first and it's important to note that senate bill has the same flaws as the 1986 law. it gives the same status and then it says we're going to do all of these enforcement measures after we give legal status and it has what i call a special pathway to citizenship which people who have for generations lawfully immigrated to the united states do not get but if you came into the country illegally or overstayed your visa and are here illegally today you've got something those people don't have. >> schieffer: i hope the two of you can figure it out. >> we'll work together. >> schieffer: i'm glad to hear that. we'll be right back.

>> schieffer: back now with our panel. amy walter is a reporter with the cook political report. kevin madden was a stop strategist for the romney campaign, he's now a cnn political commentator. bobby ghosh is the "time" international editor. we need to start with egypt, bobby. i don't see any good news here. >> it's getting worse depending on what numbers you believe, anywhere between a thousand and 15,000 people were killed. a thousand and 1,500 people were killed in egypt last week.

that's more than were killed in iraq and that's saying something >> schieffer: what can or should the united states be doing? >> time has come to suspend the aid. as you said earlier in the show, it's a very small carrot, a billion and a half dollars doesn't amount to very much these days but removing it is a big stick. it's not just symbolic. if the u.s. freezes aid, international donors freeze aid. the e.u. very likely will follow. as senator graham said, tourism dries up, foreign investors pull out. so that's leverage and that leverage is the only thing left now that the president can use and i think time has come for it. >> schieffer: we should not forget how that aid came to be and it was part of the camp david accord. and what the camp david accord did, basically egypt said we'll recognize israel. they had been the main threat to israel's security. if we take that aid away and

somebody like the head of al qaeda's brother comes into power in egypt, what is that going to do for the security of israel? >> well, for one thing, you're absolutely right. this is something that was part of camp david. but egypt, israel, the entire middle east has changed substantially. it's no longer the pivot on which the middle east. israel is much better at protecting itself than it was at camp david and has demonstrated over again. and nobody, not even the muslim brotherhood, wants to mess with israel. they acknowledge and accept morsi did almost immediately as he became president promise to observe the peace treaty because everybody in egypt understands that you mess with israel and your country is going to turn into rubble. i think our concern for israel's security, it's good for us to be concerned about it but we shouldn't allow us to do what needs to be done to try and move the needle in that situation. right now a billion and a half dollars is not moving the

needle. >> schieffer: amy, what can the president do from a political standpoint and domestic politics back here? >> well, i think the situation in egypt is just another reminder of the lack of influence that this president has right now and it sort of -- i guess the word is lame duckness. both internationally and domestically. whether it is on trying to get congress to work to his liking on immigration, on tax reform, on a grand bargain, those things seem really like they have just absolutely faded away. the summer was supposed to be the time we are going to hear from constituents about immigration. there was going to be a movement afoot to move the tea party forward on getting a lot of the president's agenda going forward. i think we've heard the exact opposite from what's been happening out there. so the president's job is he's going to come back vacation, go

on another bus tour around the country which is going to once again not move the needle at all and what we saw, i thought, here today between the two members of congress and immigration is where we were long before the president left for violation. republicans saying it has to be piecemeal, democrats saying it has to be a comprehensive process and we're back to square one. >> schieffer: kevin, you were with the romney campaign, we saw how the romney campaign totally underestimated the minority vote. dwlong's any question that immigration hurt grpl's campaign. can the republican party sustain as a mayor party if it doesn't come up with some kind of stance that is appealing to hispanics? the fastest-growing population -- >> the math is not on our side if we don't do a better job at engaging latino voters.

and i think the big struggle within the republican party is whether or not immigration is going to be the issue that's going to then all of a sudden have latino voters look at republicans differently. it's not. but it is an important first step? the process. republicans right now, our position on immigration is mostly defined by what we're against or just border security. and i i have this what's key for the republican party if we're going to grow our influence within that growing sector of the electorate is talking about what an aspirational immigration system looks like. what a modernized immigration system looks like. how that's consistent with republican values in both border security but also how we want to grow our economy and become a welcoming nation. also making sure that that is something these voters know that we're for. that it's part of a growing effort to reach out to these voters not only on economics but on health care, education. and, again, we're the party of

reform and ideas and that was one of the reasons we struggled. >> the republicans have been a party of no for so long that nobody knows what they stand for. they've never been -- there's not been a positive message. >> well, when we flourished when've been a party of ideas and reform. what happened is in 2010 the party flourished at the polls because we were a party of no that aligned itself with an electorate of no. but that was against spending and growth of government. but we have to look -- everybody recognizings we need immigration reformment we differ on the details but we have to, again, now -- >> pelley:. >> schieffer: there seems to be a difference in republicans at the national level and and members of congress where national leaders say, look, we have to find something that appeals to hispanics if we're going to elect a republican president but you have local congressmen most of whom don't have hispanics in their district and they say look, if i vote for immigration reform i'll all i'm going do is help myself get a

primary opponent. >> that's one of the challenges we have to overcome is only looking at the first five yards in front of us versus looking at the hundred yards and how do we get a touchdown? so that's something you saw emerge from the r.n.c. meeting this year that we just had in boston. you had essentially where our republican party is doing the best right now. we're doing the best with governors in states. they are focused on governmental reform, educational reform, spending, growing their local economy. so what you're going stove a breakdown over the next two years over the doers-- which are these executives around the country. those interested in making public policy work and then thinkers, the ones that want to argue the theory of politics, the theory of ideology in washington, d.c. and that, i think, is much more of a -- i think it's one of the partisan battle lines that i think -- not partisan line bus one of the fault lines that's going to emerge as part of who we choose as a nominee in 2016.

>> schieffer: let's talk about the national security agency. this thing becomes more complicated. sometimes you don't know who to believe in all of this. where do you see that going? >> every week there's a new report that says that everything we knew before was wrong or a great deal. and this has now become a case of unknown unknowns. that is a real concern and this argument that you should listen to every conversation just on the off chance you might listen in and catch the one that will lead to something is deeply flawed. this is not the first time you've come -- we've been having this argument since the beginning of telephones, since the beginning of mail, practically and it's never been true and i don't see how and why it should be true now when the amounts of data are exponentially larger. >> schieffer: is this a political issue in do people care? have people decided maybe privacy is not what it used snob >> it goes to the bigger

question is who do they trust they have to information. we know when we go to to the grocery store and skn our reward thing they know what i eat everyday, they know when idom the store. supreme a lot of information about me. it's a question about who you trust with that information. right now the respect for government is as low as it's been -- if not forever in a very very long time. that's where it becomes a political issue anded where this decentralization that kevin was talking about about who do you want to have access to this information-- a governor who you know is looking out for your best interests or this big entity, the government, that you don't know what their motives will be and an incredibly polarized washington that may use this for political purposes. >> schieffer: do you see this playing a role in the next presidential election or being -- or even in the one next year? >> i think it will because you'll have questions about where you stand on national security. what i found very interesting about this current debate is

that it hasn't broken along the usual traditional party lines in washington, d.c. you have bipartisan coalitions on both sides of the issue. i think chairman goodlatte made a good point that the key for the president and congress as they work for these changes is being able to restore the american public's confidence in these programs because the execution has been what i think has undermined people's confidence. it's a big government entity that's inefficient and now they need to do a better job of showing that they are efficient. that they're not abusing the powers that have been given them. >> but i will be very curious to see if a republican president is elected in the next election where the fault lines are going to go. what we've seen is that democrat much more accepting of this policy than they were with bush it shall was president, republicans much less accepting so who the president is determines in many ways where people line up on whether they support or whether they're feeling sort of nervous or antagonistic about it.

>> schieffer: who do each of you think is going to be the nominee for the two parties next year? (laughter) >> oh, gosh, that is tough! >> everybody -- you want to say hillary clinton, you have to say hillary clinton on the democratic side although i wouldn't want to be labeled the frun they are far ahead of time. it doesn't usually work out that well for the front-runner. on the republican side, kevin is on to something. more likely we'll see a governor than a senator. >> schieffer: will that be chris christie? >> i think chris christie is one. there's always somebody that makes a splash in the party nobody is talking about right now. i them people want governor scott walker out of wisconsin. >> schieffer: all right, well thank you. this has been a lot of fun, we'll be right back. ,,,,,,,,,,,,

>> schieffer: well, that is all the time we have for today. we hope you'll tune in tomorrow for cbs "this morning" for the latest on the situation in egypt. i'll see you all next week on the "cbs evening news" and next sunday a very special broadcast on "face the nation." we'll be talking about the 50th anniversary of mooushg's "i have a dream" speech and the march on washington. our special guest will include

former secretary of state colin powell and the legendary civil rights advocate, the last living person who spoke along with martin luther king, georgia congressman john lewis. he was there, he'll be with us next sunday. we hope you'll join us. we'll see you then. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals: help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

the captioning on this program is provided as an independent service of caption max, which is solely responsible for the accurate and complete transcription of program content. cbs, its parent and affiliated companies, and their respective agents and divisions, are not responsible for the accuracy, or completeness of any transcription, or for any errors in transcription. closed captioning provided by cbs sports division